due to safety critical working regulations. just had to get rid of someone as they refused a random test. had been out drinking until late, apparently.

feel sh*t now - seems harsh as he is a nice bloke and a good worker.

 

I get it every week. Any time of the week too. Just go into work and get pulled for Random d&a test

 

What would have happened if he'd accepted and tested positive? Instant dismissal, or a written warning?

Seems odd that he opted to refuse and therefore got sacked, it suggested he had nothing to lose.

 

if he had tested positive he would have been dismissed and unable to work within the industry for five years. same as if he refused. i tried to persuade him to drink loads of water and then go and take his chance, but he didn't want to. at least if he had taken the test he could have cariied on working until the results come through, which takes a few days.

 

what job is that for ?

 

working within operational railway.

 

bloody hell

 

Well, he knew the score. You were just doing your job, it's his own fault. I don't understand why he refused to take the test.

 

basically cos he knew he was going to fail. the permissable alcohol level is half the current uk driving limit, so if you have been on a big session the night before, it is very likely that you will fail. he shouldn't have turned up for work in the first place.

 

So if he'd taken a sickie, or even just not turned up for work, he'd have probably got a warning at worst about timekeeping???

As it is, he loses his job, and can't work in the industry for years??

Unless he was doing this all the time and just hoping he'd never get tested, then he's pretty silly for turning up at work KNOWING he would fail a test.

 

At my place of work we don't do random tests but will run a test if we suspect a worker has been on drink or drugs. We also test after an incident or accident.
Lee

 

You might find this report of interest:

http://www.personneltoday.com/pt_new...24416&source=5

There's another survey on the home page.

It's a tough question - I work with lots of HGV drivers so it's a big issue. At the end of the day it's better to stop someone going out over the limit than think of the consequences.

It's easy to say "They knew the score" but can anyone honestly say they've not breached company guidelines at some point (even if it is only internet access for SN... ) Another BA pilot was caught as well last week.

 

absolutely. that's why the tests have to be random and staff cannot be notified in advance. obviously, if he knew he was going to be selected for a random test, he wouldn't have turned up.

 

PC,

Was his test totally random and if so how do you chose?

We test workers who look worse for wear, smell of drink etc. but there are no names in the hat style tests.

Lee

 

from DBW's link

unfortunately, the rail industy doesn't really have any truck with the "support for staff who test positive" bit. basically you are out on your ear and that's the end of the matter.

 

Lee - it was totally random. i use an excel macro to generate however many random numbers i need, and then compare them to staff payroll numbers. whoever's number comes up - they go.

 

Couldn't you have lent him some of your clean p!ss?

 

I'm sure many have breached company guidelines. Probably a lot less have breached guidelines that give you an instant dismissal and a five-year ban though. That's like defending someone who's caught doing 160mph on a dual carriageway by saying "Ah, but we've all broken the speed limit at some point".

Seems a harsh policy though, I'd have thought a written warning (and perhaps offer or order for counselling) would have been OK for the first offence, and maybe a 5-yr ban for a second. But I don't know exactly what he does.

BA pilots deserve to get the book thrown at them IMHO.

 

So what is the difference between a pilot with a 200 passengers, or a train driver with 200 passengers?

None I'd say.

 

That the plane could fall on a town or city causing massive damage?

 

Also, a plane usually has a co-pilot. A train does not.

 

Really? When have you seen a train carrying 20 tonnes of fuel fall 30 000 feet?

Seriously, I'm close to agreeing with you, but he didn't say he was a driver, I got the impression it was track maintenance.

 

That shouldn't matter - 200 lives is 200 lives.....yes, a plane COULD cause more 3rd party deaths, but even so.....

Ah, ok....got the impression it was a driver, but probably not upon re-reading the thread....

 

I thought that as well, but if you knew that you'd only get a warning on the first offence it's far more likely workers would take even more risks until they got caught the first time.

 

Even if he was an electricain or pointsman he still has the ability to cause the deaths of 100's of people.


In my industries past mistakes by an individual has caused the deaths of over 1000 men in one incident. It still happens today in places like China and Russia where safety is not a priority.

Sometimes it's hard on the individual but we must not loose sight of why the rules were introduced

Lee

 

What do you do Lee?

 

out of interest, what do they test for exactly?

 

I'm an Electrical Engineer in the Mining Industry.

 

I think sacking someone for a first offence is rather harsh. We send them home, give them a warning and take it from there. We also offer counselling if people need it for drug and alcohol problems.

 

Ok there's a lot of responsibility